Most forms of workplace discrimination have been barred for years thanks to state and federal protections. But in 49 states around the U.S., there’s still at least one that’s legal: discrimination based on weight.

They argued that the casino viewed them as nothing but sex objects and were forced to endure frequent weigh-ins and were even suspended when they gained excessive weight, which could not be 7% more than their initial weight when they were hired. The court essentially told the cocktail waitresses that they knew what they were getting into by citing the application process for future “babes,” which stated that the positions were “part fashion model, part beverage server, part charming host and hostess. All impossibly lovely.” Judge Johnson also cited the fact that the casino’s “babes” signed statements agreeing to the 7% weight-gain policy.

“For the individual labeled a ‘babe’ to become a sex object requires that person’s participation and nothing before the court supports a finding of fraud, duress or coercion in connection with the plaintiffs’ hiring,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiffs cannot shed the label ‘babe'; they embraced it when they went to work for the Borgata.”

The case was part sex-based discrimination (the plaintiffs argued that the Borgata did not apply the same restrictions to their male counterparts) but also part weight discrimination. The judge, however, found nothing in New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination barring any of the casino’s actions. And in fact, only one state in the country specifically bars discrimination based on height or weight: Michigan.

In 1976, Michigan’s state legislature amended its Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to include height and weight discrimination. The author of the amendment, then state representative Thomas Mathieu, told the Associated Press in 2010 that he introduced the bill because “he was ‘flabbergasted’ by the number of cases of unfairness involving women seeking office jobs who possessed the necessary skills and personality, but were overweight.”

The law went largely unchallenged for years but was pushed into the spotlight in 2010 when Hooters waitress Cassandra Smith sued her employer on similar grounds as the Borgata case, saying that the chain restaurant known for dressing its servers in tank tops and skimpy bright orange shorts put her on a 30-day weight probation. The case later went into arbitration.

Richard Bernstein, a Michigan-based disability-rights attorney who represented Smith, says the ruling in the Borgata case is troubling and could set a precedent for other employers around the country.

“That’s a horrible ruling,” he says. “You have to look at the far-reaching applications of it. You always have to look at a decision with a broad brush. That decision gives employers a tremendous power over people in the workplace.”

A handful of cities, including Santa Cruz, Calif., Madison, Wisc., and Binghamton, N.Y., have laws in place to protect against discriminatory practices involving weight in the workplace, but there doesn’t appear to be any momentum in other municipalities and states around the country for more protections.

“Weight is the last bastion of discrimination in the workplace that’s still acceptable,” says James J. Parks, a partner at Jaffe Law Firm specializing in harassment and employment issues. “Whether an employer’s policy is nice or nasty doesn’t mean anything. Whether it’s illegal is another issue, and unfair doesn’t always equal illegal.”

It appesrs that they signed a model's contract instead of a waitressing contract. Therein lies the leagal loophole. As far as height discrimmination I've only heard of a few. Military, policeman & flight attendants (only because on short hops there is only so much headroom clearance).

Looks are important. Who wants to go to a sexy bar that doesn't have sexy waitresses? Is the NFL discriminatory because they only employ the best fit people? Lose weight and stop feeding your face. Fifty years ago this wasn't an issue because most people weren't' fat.

I want more weight-based discrimination, especially on long-distance plane flights. Why should I have to suffer because the random person next to me doesn't fit into their seat? And could they please chew with their mouth closed?

I think giving weight discrimination greater national attention than height discrimination is wrong. Height is mostly determined by what country your relatives are from--and as such, is a form of racism. Weight--well, it's unfortunate if a person is fat, but, it is determined by diet and is under an individual's control. If one of these evils should have a higher priority, height discrimination--which has gotten much worse during the last decade--is it.

I love all the people that believe just because the women "signed the contract," that the contract is by definition enforceable. If a court finds the contract to be discriminatory, then it is null and void. IT DOESN"T MATTER IF THEY SIGNED IT !!!

It doesn't matter if it's official or not. As an overweight attorney, I soon realized in interviewing that I did not fit the "type" that most big law firms want in the way of image. All the men are tall and slender. Whether it's official or not, you won't get the job being fat, irrespective of credentials, and you will be fired for some made-up reason if you do gain the weight. Really, no way around it.

While discrimination does exist, in this case, all of the employees signed agreements to the 7% condition. They were terminated for violating a contractual term that they agreed to when they were hired. If they were hired without that condition, or were fired for not accepting the condition after they were already employed, they'd have a case. It simply isn't discrimination to hold people to contractual terms that they themselves agreed to and consented to.

So, I wonder if TIME Magazine would be so inane to label the following as, 'discrimination:'

1) A gym that refuses to hire a "certified personal trainer" who is severely overweight.

2) A modeling agency that refuses to hire models with large waist-lines.

3) (taken from the comments below) A swimming pool that refuses to hire a lifeguard who cannot swim the adequate distance in a given time.

4) A school that refuses to hire a gym teacher who cannot live what he teaches (i.e. PHYSICAL Education).

5) A branch of the military that refuses to train a recruit who cannot walk without huffing and puffing along the way.

Quite frankly, any of the above-individuals would pose a significant liability to the particular firm of which they'd be a part. Aside from obesity (which, admittedly, is a disease), a person's inability to control his/her weight is a clear demonstration of misplaced priorities. As the face of any organization, an employee is responsible for maintaining a healthy image.

Being grossly overweight (combined with poor clothing choices) gives off the wrong impression, and can steer away potential clientele. If readers don't think those impressions occur in business, they are only fooling themselves. While never stated to the person, being overweight contributes to impressions of poor self-control, laziness, gluttony (yes, I still hear that term), etc..

I am a lifeguard. I train lifeguards. If someone is overweight and can't rescue someone from the bottom of a pool, then they are not qualified for the job and they will not pass the class. I've had a 95 pound girl pull a 200 lb man off the bottom of a pool. I've had overweight people who can't swim the required 300 yards before the class even begins. So you never know what a person is capable of.

Obesity is NOT a disease. Cancer is a disease. No one forces a person to over eat - it's a choice. Just like no one forces an alcoholic to keep drinking. Weight gain is not healthy. Amusement parks should have weight restrictions just like they have height restrictions. It's for safety. That woman in Texas never would have been killed on the roller coaster if the employee had told her she couldn't ride due to safety reasons.

Lack of self control is a character flaw. It doesn't matter if it's food, sex, gossip, credit cards, or whatever. Just look at Anthony Weiner.

Fat people lack the discipline to manage their weight and in the process run up medical costs to society. In this case, their weight is not a medical problem but an aesthetic one but I still have no sympathy. Getting fat is not in the best interests of any employer.

Control your weight or suffer the consequences. I'm sick and tired of the fat claiming disability when in fact, they eat too much and exercise too little.

So, let me see if I've got this right. Young attractive women are hired for jobs that men or older or unattractive women would not be eligible for in the first place. These women derive benefit from an accidental set of environmental and genetic attributes not shared by the general population. Now the argument is that they should keep the job without these attributes? Well, I guess that puts them in the same position as the rest of us; not qualified.

I wish they would make it harder to survive as a fat, lazy slob. Make them foot their own medical bills, dont give them disability for being fat. I could get fat if i wanted but i CHOOSE not to let myself. Its a choice but unfortunately people now days thinks its ok to be fat and its not. It is disgraceful. I was raised in a family with several family members that are or were excessively over weight and not only affects the fat persons life, it affects everyone around them. Perfect example, my mother is 5ft. 3in. and easily 350 lbs... and she is also less than 5 years away from being in a wheelchair and medically unable to work... Thats what happens when you take away the stigma of being a fat.

I don't see an issue with this. You have the appearance issue for the job, but also health issues that comes with being over weight, and they signed the agreement. Airline hostesses are in the same boat. The heavier the staff, the more in fuel costs to operate with them on board. In fact I think airline tickets should be priced by the pound. Lighter people pay less, heavier people pay more. That is how UPS charges for shipping packages, and trust me, I am not a shinny chicken.

Good for the judge. If these fat slobs don't know how disgusting they are to look at they should not be hired. I would love to see most seriously overweight people get fired so the public wouldn't have to look at them.

Even though I hold many traditional Liberal positions, I have to agree that certain jobs are based maintaining a certain appearance, and a person signs on for those conditions when they accept the job. I would hope this is a very narrow, case specific ruling.

When someone is hired knowing the conditions of the job, they have nothing to complain about if they don't maintain the job standards for which they were hired. If "looks" have nothing to do with the job at all and were never part of thje job description in the first place, THEN one can legitimately argue about discrimination.

But because not only did the waitresses know in advance what they were getting in to and signed agreements to that effect, this case has no merit and the judge basically said so. I have to agree with the judge in this case.

This lawsuit is absurd. What's next? A runway model suing for discirmination after getting fired for getting fat? When physical attractiveness is an essential component of the job, then a lack of physical attractiveness is justification for terminating employment. We are not talking about an accountant here.

It is not discrimination if the future employee is informed before they are employed. Further, it is common practice for a business to hire attractive people because let's face it, sex sells. In a casino or fine restaurant, one wants to see attractive people b/c it gives the business a sense of "class". I work in a casino and the majority of waitresses are NOT attractive and brings down the appeal of the place.Maybe this will motivate people to take care of themselves. If all you have to do to make good money is take care of yourself, why not ? It is easier to maintain your appearance than it is to earn a degree. Regarding women specifically, women use sex and sex appeal in their daily lives to get what they want anyway, so why not use it to make a living ? I see nothing wrong with making the waitstaff (including men) maintain their appearance. That's business , baby.

Personally I find this whole business distasteful, I would rather have good service than someone that looks good.

These yound women (and men) that apply for these types of jobs need to be very careful, it is not just about looks. They need to learn to save their money, and use these opportunities to train for long-lasting careers.

It is an excellent form of motivation and can work well, if your hired to be skinny and good-looking then the aim of the job is to stay that way,if you do become/are to "fat" for the job then thats fine, the real problem is the companies starting to fire waitresses for other reason based on the "fat" issue. As @lurch has said it is a very slippery slope and we must be careful not to slide farther down.

@mrbomb13 None of your examples reflect actual weight discrimination. In each one, the person is obviously not competent enough to accomplish the job, and they would not get it because of that. Now, here's some better examples of why we need a law that bars weight discrimination:

1. A paralegal with five years experience in a specific area loses out to a novice legal assistant fresh out of school because the attorney wanted someone thinner.

2. A PR publicist losing a job opportunity SOLELY because the president of the company "hates fattys."

3. An engineer, despite being more talented and harder working than anyone else in her company, never sees a promotion; other, thinner (and not always competent) engineers always get it.

4. A server is fired despite an excellent working record, only to be replaced with someone half his size.

5. A firm institutes a policy stating that anyone with a BMI over 20 will be terminated/not hired.

"Aside from obesity (which, admittedly, is a disease), a person's inability to control his/her weight is a clear demonstration of misplaced priorities."

[CITATION NEEDED]

"While never stated to the person, being overweight contributes to impressions of poor self-control, laziness, gluttony (yes, I still hear that term), etc.."

This is unfortunately true, mainly because people don't bother to judge a book beyond its cover. Seriously, replace "overweight" with almost any other human attribute: Too tall, too skinny, a person of a certain race, etc. Pity we can't judge books beyond their covers.

@mrbomb13 Obesity is not a disease. Some obese people may have a condition that causes it but it is not a disease. But, when I was growing up, during the 1940s and 1950s, there were few obese people around. I can remember only one in my home town. There were people who were heavy but that is different.

Now obese people are common and it has to be something besides diseases or medical conditions. Something has happened to our population and I believe it is diet and portion sizes that are complimented with less physical activity.

@JustMeAgain Yes, but you're talking about a situation in which the person cannot physically perform the duties of the job. True, it's not a disability, and not something that is outside of the person's abilities to control (for the most part, although there ARE medical conditions that can contribute to someone's weight), but in most jobs - and I would argue, in these womens' jobs - a weight limit is not necessarily a good guidline as to who can physically perform the job and who cannot.

@Jimmyecon "Fat people lack the discipline to manage their weight" [CITATION NEEDED] Seriously, in a world with companies deliberately making food addictive, genetics and the fact that unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food, you should not be saying that.

If shaming and stigmas actually worked, there would be no children born outside of marriage, no premarital sex, no dating outside one's race, no obesity, no internet trolls and no cheating on tests. Good luck with all that!

@vancetp84 You have exactly the same situation we have in our family. My two sisters are both nurses who work in doctor's offices. They are in their late 50's and both weigh around 250 pounds which is about 100 pounds overweight on any scale you wish to use. They eat constantly all day, but can't understand why they are obese. When I was in college we had a nickname for fat women - "the moomoo crowd" because they all wore the big print, long, drapery type one piece dresses to hide the lard. Weight gain is the result of eating more calories than you burn - put down the fork, try going on a 2,000 calorie daily intake, and go for a walk instead of eating a big lunch.

@vancetp84 Perhaps they should make it harder to survive if you are tanned, eat salt and high fructose corn syrup, have sex with multiple partners or drive like an idiot. People think it's OK to do those things too. All of these things could be considered "disgraceful" and perhaps the people who make these choices should also lose their jobs, pay their own medical bills and be denied disability. I suspect if I was your mother I would have addiction issues also. I suspect you are a tough one to love.

@JasonDStanfield@mrbomb13 It is a "disease" spread by contact with fast food wrappers. It has also been found to thrive on couches placed directly in front of television sets. The "cure" is eating sensible food with smaller portions, not being lazy, and getting proper exercise.

@iscream2478 stop making excuses for people... we are talking about attractive people employed because they are there to look at, while patrons drink and eat... they werent hired for there ability. get over it... if you want to look at fat people while you eat and drink then open a Fat people only restaraunt. simples.

Then why have obsity rates increased so much since 1980 when the human genome has not , nor could not, change one miniscule bit in the same timeframe? No one is doubting that obesity in influenced by gnetics, but much of those genes, e.g. the FTO gene, is an appetite gene.

Let's put it this way, suppose that sunbathing all day long and using high-intensity tanning beds became a near-universal social norm and then light-skinned people began whining that photoaging, sunburn and skin cancer were genetic diseases because all of a sudden those conditions escalated in the vulnerable population.